The importance of a clear national ideology lies in its ability to unify the people and guide the direction of the state across political, economic, and social spheres. When a country is created based on a unique ideological foundation, any confusion or distortion of that ideology can affect its institutional integrity and national coherence. Pakistan, since its inception, has wrestled with this dilemma. The ideological discourse between religious orthodoxy and modernist interpretations continues to shape, and often unsettle, the constitutional and political structure of the country. In the backdrop of this ongoing debate lies the Objective Resolution of 1949, a document that was initially intended to reflect the ideals of the nascent Muslim state but which, over the years, became a source of legal and ideological ambiguity.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The Objective Resolution was introduced in 1949 by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and passed by the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. It affirmed that sovereignty belongs to Allah alone and that the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan, within the limits prescribed by Him, is a sacred trust. It acknowledged the fundamental rights of all citizens and pledged to ensure an environment in which Muslims could order their lives in accordance with Islamic teachings while minorities could practice their religion and develop their cultures. At the time, the resolution was a political compromise intended to address both the demands of the religious segment and the aspirations of those advocating democratic structures. This duality gave it wide appeal but also sowed the seeds of future contention.
Over the decades, the resolution transitioned from a moral compass to a legal foundation. It was first inserted as a preamble in the 1956 Constitution, remained present in the 1962 and 1973 Constitutions, and was eventually made a substantive part of the Constitution in 1985 through Article 2A under General Zia-ul-Haq's regime. This change, made through the Revival of the Constitution Order, significantly altered the legal status of the resolution. Previously symbolic, it now held constitutional authority and could be cited in legal arguments. However, this elevation of status came at a cost. The omission of key language from the original version, particularly the word "freely" from the clause about religious practice for minorities, was telling. The removal of the word "freely" from the provision ensuring minority rights marked a departure from the inclusive spirit originally embedded in the Resolution.
On one side, religious elements found strength in the affirmation that no law would be repugnant to Islamic injunctions. This aligned with their vision of an Islamic polity rooted in the Quran and Sunnah. It provided the courts with a basis to review legislation for its compatibility with Islam and gave legitimacy to the idea that the state had a religious purpose beyond mere governance. This emphasis on Islamic principles also introduced moral language into constitutional discourse. Concepts like equality, morality, and social justice began to be seen through an Islamic lens, which bolstered the claim that the state's identity was inherently tied to Islam. The Federal Shariat Court, since its inception in 1980, has used Article 2A in numerous judgments to strike down laws that it deems un-Islamic, giving the Resolution tangible legal consequence.
On the other hand, the Resolution did not discard democratic aspirations. It supported elected government and the protection of fundamental rights, offering a foundation for democratic norms to develop. Modernists and secular-minded citizens found some comfort in its provisions for individual liberty, equality, and rule of law. Yet, their comfort has been continually tested by the increasing dominance of religious discourse, especially when interpreted in ways that clash with pluralism or minority protections. The contradiction between declaring sovereignty belongs to Allah while also embracing representative democracy has led to a legal and political paradox. Scholars like Hamid Khan argue that this unresolved tension between divine sovereignty and popular representation continues to undermine clarity in constitutional interpretation.
Furthermore, the ideological ambiguity has allowed successive governments to exploit this duality for political expediency. During periods of authoritarian rule, especially under General Zia, the Islamic provisions were emphasized to legitimize central control and suppress dissent. Under civilian democratic governments, the language of rights and representative government was invoked to reverse some of these effects. This ebb and flow has created a cycle of constitutional instability and legal contradictions. The problem is not merely academic but deeply political. It influences legislation, judicial decisions, and even public education. The confusion extends into how citizenship is defined and how religious identity impacts legal rights.
Most concerning is the impact on religious minorities. While the Resolution promises religious freedom, the constitutional commitment to Islamic supremacy has fueled laws and practices that restrict this very freedom. For example, the introduction and misuse of blasphemy laws have led to widespread fear and misuse of the judicial system, particularly targeting non-Muslims and minority Muslim sects. Numerous human rights organizations have documented cases where blasphemy laws were invoked as tools of persecution rather than justice, undermining both the spirit and the text of the original Resolution.
This dual ideological framework has also shaped the country’s identity crises. Instead of evolving a cohesive national narrative, Pakistan remains caught between competing visions. The state finds it difficult to answer fundamental questions about what kind of society it wishes to build. Should it be a theocratic state guided strictly by Islamic law, or a modern Muslim-majority democracy that accommodates multiple interpretations and lifestyles? This question is no longer theoretical. It affects everything from lawmaking to foreign policy, and from education to interfaith relations.
CSS Solved Past Papers from 2010 to Date by Miss Iqra Ali
Explore CSS solved past papers (2010 to Date) by Miss Iqra Ali, featuring detailed answers, examiner-focused content, and updated solutions. Perfect for aspirants preparing for CSS with accuracy and confidence.
The Objective Resolution, while historic and aspirational, is thus a reflection of Pakistan’s unresolved ideological identity. It tried to bind together two competing worldviews into a single constitutional promise, and while it temporarily satisfied both religious conservatives and modern democrats, it created an ongoing source of confusion in Pakistan’s legal and political structures. This confusion has allowed various actors to manipulate its dual language, often to serve partisan goals rather than national unity.
What Pakistan needs now is not a rejection of the Resolution, but a critical reappraisal of its role and interpretation. The state must develop a consistent constitutional philosophy that is clear in its commitments, inclusive in its application, and respectful of diversity. The promise of the Resolution can only be fulfilled when its ideals are anchored in justice, equality, and a clear governance model that harmonizes religious identity with democratic accountability. Without this, Pakistan will continue to face the consequences of a divided ideological foundation, weakening its institutions, polarizing its society, and distancing itself from the inclusive vision its founding leaders once articulated.
